Between Local Acceptability and International Opprobrium: On Nigeria’s Anti-Same Sex Marriage Law; Is Western Voice a Human Rights Advocacy or Cultural Imperialism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, homosexual activity is legally prohibited in thirty-eight of Africa’s fifty-four countries and many of them have come to the fore in opposing the notion that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) rights should be protected legally. For Nigeria, its federal law criminalizes homosexuality and this creates a hostile situation for Nigeria’s beleaguered LGBT+ community. The interplay between same-sex marriage and human rights has generated considerable debate since the act, which stipulates 14 years imprisonment for offenders, was enacted in the country. It has drawn international condemnation from countries such as the United States and Britain. But the overwhelming majority of Nigerians who support the same sex marriage (prohibition) law are adamant. This study therefore, interrogates the anti-same sex marriage law within the socio-cultural context of the African society. Substantially relying on secondary sources of data gathering, it scrutinizes the responses of Western politicians, government representatives and non-governmental organizations to the Nigeria’s (nay Africa) anti-same sex marriage law. It also situates the international antagonism within the realm of human rights advocacy or cultural imperialism. It conclusively establishes the congruent locations and divergent paths of local issues within global relations. Although this is not an empirical work, what I seek to emphasise in this article is that if cultural values can be seen to be more enduring (though amenable to changes) and by way of general acceptability, a biding law is made of such values, as in the case of anti-same sex marriage law in many African countries, it will amount to cultural imposition when strident antagonism comes from without.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".